Talk:An American Mosaic: Prose and Poetry by Everyday Folk

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled[edit]

from VfD:

Advert for a non-notable literary anthology (Amazon sales rank of 481,375). The things you find with random page... RadicalSubversiv E 19:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obvious Delete - Sad to see in the history that mid-August, somebody took a few minutes of his time to solve a problem of homonymy on one of the names quoted there... But ten months alive are definitely enough for this article --French Tourist 19:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak as water keep: The book made a small splash when it was published, and it's certainly done by a prestigious house. I'm suspicious of the article and whether it's copyvio or not (the long Kirkus review is a typical book website thing, as general readers aren't often reading Kirkus). However, the book is moderately notable, although it could be merged into a larger, more accessible article on voices of the disenfranchised and documentary prose. Geogre 03:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, its published by a notable publisher, but is not a topical best-seller. If it is a copyvio, report it though. —siro χ o 20:42, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. Should be checked for possible copyvio. Beyond that, it's a substantial enough look at the book to justify keeping it. Gamaliel 23:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion